Throughout history, people have devised systems to make getting and using water more convenient. Early Rome had indoor plumbing, meaning a system of aqueducts and pipes that terminated in homes and at public wells and fountains for people to use.

Chelsea Waterworks, 1752. Two Newcomen beam engines pumped Thames water from a canal to reservoirs at Green Park and Hyde Park.

Original map by John Snow showing the clusters of cholera cases in the London epidemic of 1854

The first documented use of sand filters to purify the water supply dates to 1804, when the owner of a bleachery in Paisley, Scotland, John Gibb, installed an experimental filter, selling his unwanted surplus to the public. The first treated public water supply in the world was installed by engineer James Simpson for the Chelsea Waterworks Company in London in 1829.[6] The practice of water treatment soon became mainstream, and the virtues of the system were made starkly apparent after the investigations of the physician John Snow during the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak demonstrated the role of the water supply in spreading the cholera epidemic.[7]

The Metropolis Water Act introduced regulation of the water supply companies in London, including minimum standards of water quality for the first time. The Act "made provision for securing the supply to the Metropolis of pure and wholesome water", and required that all water be "effectually filtered" from 31 December 1855.[8] This legislation set a worldwide precedent for similar state public health interventions across Europe.[9]

Permanent water chlorination began in 1905, when a faulty slow sand filter and a contaminated water supply led to a serious typhoid fever epidemic in Lincoln, England.[10] Dr. Alexander Cruickshank Houston used chlorination of the water to stem the epidemic. His installation fed a concentrated solution of chloride of lime to the water being treated.[11] The first continuous use of chlorine in the United States for disinfection took place in 1908 at Boonton Reservoir (on the Rockaway River), which served as the supply for Jersey City, New Jersey.[12]Desalination appeared during the late 20th century, and is still limited to a few areas.

The technique of purification of drinking water by use of compressed liquefied chlorine gas was developed by a British officer in the Indian Medical Service, Vincent B. Nesfield, in 1903.[13]U.S. ArmyMajorCarl Rogers Darnall, Professor of Chemistry at the Army Medical School, gave the first practical demonstration of this in 1910. This work became the basis for present day systems of municipal water purification.

In 2010, about 85% of the global population (6.74 billion people) had access to piped water supply through house connections or to an improved water source through other means than house, including standpipes, water kiosks, spring supplies and protected wells. However, about 14% (884 million people) did not have access to an improved water source and had to use unprotected wells or springs, canals, lakes or rivers for their water needs.[14]

A clean water supply - in particular water that is not polluted with fecal matter from lack of sanitation - is the single most important determinant of public health.[citation needed] Destruction of water supply and/or sanitation infrastructure after major catastrophes (earthquakes, floods, war, etc.) poses the immediate threat of severe epidemics of waterborne diseases, several of which can be life-threatening.

In the U.S, the typical single family home uses about 69.3 gallons (262 litres) of water per day (2008 estimate). This includes (in decreasing order) toilet use, washing machine use, showers, baths, tap use, and leaks.[15][better source needed]

A young girl collects clean water from a communal water supply in Kawempe, Uganda.

Many of the 3.5 billion people having access to piped water receive a poor or very poor quality of service, especially in developing countries where about 80% of the world population lives. Water supply service quality has many dimensions: continuity; water quality; pressure; and the degree of responsiveness of service providers to customer complaints.

Continuity of water supply is taken for granted in most developed countries, but is a severe problem in many developing countries, where sometimes water is only provided for a few hours every day or a few days a week. It is estimated that about half of the population of developing countries receives water on an intermittent basis.

Drinking water quality has a micro-biological and a physico-chemical dimension. There are thousands of parameters of water quality. In public water supply systems water should, at a minimum, be disinfected—most commonly through the use of chlorination or the use of ultra violet light—or it may need to undergo treatment, especially in the case of surface water. For more details, please see the separate entries on water quality, water treatment and drinking water.

Water pressures vary in different locations of a distribution system. Water mains below the street may operate at higher pressures, with a pressure reducer located at each point where the water enters a building or a house. In poorly managed systems, water pressure can be so low as to result only in a trickle of water or so high that it leads to damage to plumbing fixtures and waste of water. Pressure in an urban water system is typically maintained either by a pressurised water tank serving an urban area, by pumping the water up into a water tower and relying on gravity to maintain a constant pressure in the system or solely by pumps at the water treatment plant and repeater pumping stations.

Typical UK pressures are 4–5 bar for an urban supply.[citation needed] However, some people can get over eight bars or below one bar. A single iron main pipe may cross a deep valley, it will have the same nominal pressure, however each consumer will get a bit more or less because of the hydrostatic pressure (about 1 bar/10 m height). So people at the bottom of a 100-foot (30 m) hill will get about 3 bars more than those at the top.

The effective pressure also varies because of the pressure loss due to supply resistance even for the same static pressure. An urban consumer may have 5 metres of 15 mm lead pipe running from the iron main, so the kitchen tap flow will be fairly unrestricted, so high flow. A rural consumer may have a kilometre of rusted and limed 22 mm iron pipe, so their kitchen tap flow will be small. (See Bernoulli's principle for a more theoretical explanation.)

For this reason, the UK domestic water system has traditionally (prior to 1989) employed a "cistern feed" system, where the incoming supply is connected to the kitchen sink and also a header/storage tank in the attic. Water can dribble into this tank through a 12 mm pipe, plus ball valve, and then supply the house on 22 or 28 mm pipes. Gravity water has a small pressure (say ¼ bar in the bathroom) so needs wide pipes allow higher flows. This is fine for baths and toilets but is frequently inadequate for showers. A booster pump or a hydrophore is installed to increase and maintain pressure. For this reason urban houses are increasingly using mains pressure boilers (combies) which take a long time to fill a bath but suit the high back pressure of a shower.

Comparing the performance of water and sanitation service providers[edit]

Comparing the performance of water and sanitation service providers (utilities) is needed, because the sector offers limited scope for direct competition (natural monopoly). Firms operating in competitive markets are under constant pressure to out perform each other. Water utilities are often sheltered from this pressure, and it frequently shows: some utilities are on a sustained improvement track, but many others keep falling further behind best practice. Benchmarking the performance of utilities allows to simulate competition, establish realistic targets for improvement and create pressure to catch up with better utilities. Information on benchmarks for water and sanitation utilities is provided by the International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities.[16]

A great variety of institutions have responsibilities in water supply. A basic distinction is between institutions responsible for policy and regulation on the one hand; and institutions in charge of providing services on the other hand.

Water supply policies and regulation are usually defined by one or several Ministries, in consultation with the legislative branch. In the United States the United States Environmental Protection Agency, whose administrator reports directly to the President, is responsible for water and sanitation policy and standard setting within the executive branch. In other countries responsibility for sector policy is entrusted to a Ministry of Environment (such as in Mexico and Colombia), to a Ministry of Health (such as in Panama, Honduras and Uruguay), a Ministry of Public Works (such as in Ecuador and Haiti), a Ministry of Economy (such as in German states) or a Ministry of Energy (such as in Iran). A few countries, such as Jordan and Bolivia, even have a Ministry of Water. Often several Ministries share responsibilities for water supply. In the European Union, important policy functions have been entrusted to the supranational level. Policy and regulatory functions include the setting of tariff rules and the approval of tariff increases; setting, monitoring and enforcing norms for quality of service and environmental protection; benchmarking the performance of service providers; and reforms in the structure of institutions responsible for service provision. The distinction between policy functions and regulatory functions is not always clear-cut. In some countries they are both entrusted to Ministries, but in others regulatory functions are entrusted to agencies that are separate from Ministries.[citation needed]

Dozens of countries around the world have established regulatory agencies for infrastructure services, including often water supply and sanitation, in order to better protect consumers and to improve efficiency. Regulatory agencies can be entrusted with a variety of responsibilities, including in particular the approval of tariff increases and the management of sector information systems, including benchmarking systems. Sometimes they also have a mandate to settle complaints by consumers that have not been dealt with satisfactorily by service providers. These specialized entities are expected to be more competent and objective in regulating service providers than departments of government Ministries. Regulatory agencies are supposed to be autonomous from the executive branch of government, but in many countries have often not been able to exercise a great degree of autonomy. In the United States regulatory agencies for utilities have existed for almost a century at the level of states, and in Canada at the level of provinces. In both countries they cover several infrastructure sectors. In many US states they are called Public Utility Commissions. For England and Wales, a regulatory agency for water (OFWAT) was created as part of the privatization of the water industry in 1989. In many developing countries, water regulatory agencies were created during the 1990s in parallel with efforts at increasing private sector participation. (for more details on regulatory agencies in Latin America, for example, please see Water and sanitation in Latin America and the regional association of water regulatory agencies ADERASA [4])

Many countries do not have regulatory agencies for water. In these countries service providers are regulated directly by local government, or the national government. This is, for example, the case in the countries of continental Europe, in China and India.[dubious– discuss]

For more information on utility regulation in the water sector, see the Body of Knowledge on Infrastructure Regulation [5] and the World Bank's knowledge base on the same topic at [6]

Water supply service providers, which are often utilities, differ from each other in terms of their geographical coverage relative to administrative boundaries; their sectoral coverage; their ownership structure; and their governance arrangements.

Many water utilities provide services in a single city, town or municipality. However, in many countries municipalities have associated in regional or inter-municipal or multi-jurisdictional utilities to benefit from economies of scale. In the United States these can take the form of special-purpose districts which may have independent taxing authority. An example of a multi-jurisdictional water utility in the United States is WASA, a utility serving Washington, DC and various localities in the state of Maryland. Multi-jurisdictional utilities are also common in Germany, where they are known as "Zweckverbaende", in France and in Italy.

In some federal countries, there are water service providers covering most or all cities and towns in an entire state, such as in all states of Brazil and some states in Mexico (see Water supply and sanitation in Mexico). In England and Wales, water supply and sewerage is supplied almost entirely through ten regional companies. Some smaller countries, especially developed countries, have established service providers that cover the entire country or at least most of its cities and major towns. Such national service providers are especially prevalent in West Africa and Central America, but also exist, for example, in Tunisia, Jordan and Uruguay (see also water supply and sanitation in Uruguay). In rural areas, where about half the world population lives, water services are often not provided by utilities, but by community-based organizations which usually cover one or sometimes several villages.

Some water utilities provide only water supply services, while sewerage is under the responsibility of a different entity. This is for example the case in Tunisia. However, in most cases water utilities also provide sewer and sewage treatment services. In some cities or countries utilities also distribute electricity. In a few cases such multi-utilities also collect solid waste and provide local telephone services. An example of such an integrated utility can be found in the Colombian city of Medellín. Utilities that provide water, sanitation and electricity can be found in Frankfurt, Germany (Mainova), in Casablanca, Morocco and in Gabon in West Africa. Multi-utilities provide certain benefits such as common billing and the option to cross-subsidize water services with revenues from electricity sales, if permitted by law.

Water supply providers can be either public, private, mixed or cooperative. Most urban water supply services around the world are provided by public entities. As Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange (2002) stated, "The water crisis that is affecting so many people is mainly a crisis of governance — not of water scarcity." The introduction of cost-reflective tariffs together with cross-subsidization between richer and poorer consumers is an essential governance reform in order to reduce the high levels of Unaccounted or Water (UAW) and to provide the finance needed to extend the network to those poorest households who remain unconnected. Partnership arrangements between the public and private sector can play an important role in order to achieve this objective.[17]

An estimated 10 percent of urban water supply is provided by private or mixed public-private companies, usually under concessions, leases or management contracts. Under these arrangements the public entity that is legally responsible for service provision delegates certain or all aspects of service provision to the private service provider for a period typically ranging from 4 to 30 years. The public entity continues to own the assets. These arrangements are common in France and in Spain. Only in few parts of the world water supply systems have been completely sold to the private sector (privatization), such as in England and Wales as well as in Chile. The largest private water companies in the world are Suez and Veolia Environnement from France; Aguas de Barcelona from Spain; and Thames Water from the UK, all of which are engaged internationally (see links to website of these companies below). In recent years, a number of cities have reverted to the public sector in a process called "remunicipalization".[18]

90% of urban water supply and sanitation services are currently in the public sector. They are owned by the state or local authorities, or also by collectives or cooperatives. They run without an aim for profit but are based on the ethos of providing a common good considered to be of public interest. In most middle and low-income countries, these publicly owned and managed water providers can be inefficient as a result of political interference, leading to over-staffing and low labor productivity. Ironically, the main losers from this institutional arrangement are the urban poor in these countries. Because they are not connected to the network, they end up paying far more per liter of water than do more well-off households connected to the network who benefit from the implicit subsidies that they receive from loss-making utilities. The fact that we are still so far from achieving universal access to clean water and sanitation shows that public water authorities, in their current state, are not working well enough. Yet some are being very successful and are modelling the best forms of public management. As Ryutaro Hashimoto, former Japanese Prime Minister, notes: “Public water services currently provide more than 90 per cent of water supply in the world. Modest improvement in public water operators will have immense impact on global provision of services."[19]

Governance arrangements for both public and private utilities can take many forms (Kurian and McCarney, 2010).[20] Governance arrangements define the relationship between the service provider, its owners, its customers and regulatory entities. They determine the financial autonomy of the service provider and thus its ability to maintain its assets, expand services, attract and retain qualified staff, and ultimately to provide high-quality services. Key aspects of governance arrangements are the extent to which the entity in charge of providing services is insulated from arbitrary political intervention; and whether there is an explicit mandate and political will to allow the service provider to recover all or at least most of its costs through tariffs and retain these revenues. If water supply is the responsibility of a department that is integrated in the administration of a city, town or municipality, there is a risk that tariff revenues are diverted for other purposes. In some cases, there is also a risk that staff are appointed mainly on political grounds rather than based on their professional credentials.

Almost all service providers in the world charge tariffs to recover part of their costs. According to estimates by the World Bank the average (mean) global water tariff is US$0.53 per cubic meter. In developed countries the average tariff is US$1.04, while it is only U$0.11 in the poorest developing countries. The lowest tariffs in developing countries are found in South Asia (mean of US$0.09/m3), while the highest are found in Latin America (US$0.41/m3).[21] Data for 132 cities were assessed. The tariff is estimate for a consumption level of 15 cubic meters per month. Few utilities do recover all their costs. According to the same World Bank study only 30% of utilities globally, and only 50% of utilities in developed countries, generate sufficient revenue to cover operation, maintenance and partial capital costs.

According to another study undertaken in 2006 by NUS Consulting, the average water and sewerage tariff in 14 mainly OECD countries excluding VAT varied between US$0.66 per cubic meter in the United States and the equivalent of US$2.25 per cubic meter in Denmark.[22] However, water consumption is much higher in the US than in Europe. Therefore, residential water bills may be very similar, even if the tariff per unit of consumption tends to be higher in Europe than in the US.

A typical family on the US East Coast paid between US$30 and US$70 per month for water and sewer services in 2005.[23]

In developing countries, tariffs are usually much further from covering costs. Residential water bills for a typical consumption of 15 cubic meters per month vary between less than US$1 and US$12 per month.[24]

Water and sanitation tariffs, which are almost always billed together, can take many different forms. Where meters are installed, tariffs are typically volumetric (per usage), sometimes combined with a small monthly fixed charge. In the absence of meters, flat or fixed rates — which are independent of actual consumption — are being charged. In developed countries, tariffs are usually the same for different categories of users and for different levels of consumption.

In developing countries, the situation is often characterized by cross-subsidies with the intent to make water more affordable for residential low-volume users that are assumed to be poor. For example, industrial and commercial users are often charged higher tariffs than public or residential users. Also, metered users are often charged higher tariffs for higher levels of consumption (increasing-block tariffs). However, cross-subsidies between residential users do not always reach their objective. Given the overall low level of water tariffs in developing countries even at higher levels of consumption, most consumption subsidies benefit the wealthier segments of society.[25] Also, high industrial and commercial tariffs can provide an incentive for these users to supply water from other sources than the utility (own wells, water tankers) and thus actually erode the utility's revenue base.

Metering of water supply is usually motivated by one or several of four objectives: First, it provides an incentive to conserve water which protects water resources (environmental objective). Second, it can postpone costly system expansion and saves energy and chemical costs (economic objective). Third, it allows a utility to better locate distribution losses (technical objective). Fourth, it allows to charge for water based on use, which is perceived by many as the fairest way to allocate the costs of water supply to users. Metering is considered good practice in water supply and is widespread in developed countries, except for the United Kingdom. In developing countries it is estimated that half of all urban water supply systems are metered and the tendency is increasing.

The cost of supplying water consists, to a very large extent, of fixed costs (capital costs and personnel costs) and only to a small extent of variable costs that depend on the amount of water consumed (mainly energy and chemicals). The full cost of supplying water in urban areas in developed countries is about US$1–2 per cubic meter depending on local costs and local water consumption levels. The cost of sanitation (sewerage and wastewater treatment) is another US$1–2 per cubic meter. These costs are somewhat lower in developing countries. Throughout the world, only part of these costs is usually billed to consumers, the remainder being financed through direct or indirect subsidies from local, regional or national governments (see section on tariffs).

Besides subsidies water supply investments are financed through internally generated revenues as well as through debt. Debt financing can take the form of credits from commercial Banks, credits from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and regional development banks (in the case of developing countries), and bonds (in the case of some developed countries and some upper middle-income countries).

Water supply issues have specific adverse effects on women in developing nations. Women are often the primary family member responsible for providing water as well as collecting it. Inclusion of women in the design and implementation of water supply projects is an area of concern currently being addressed by multiple world organizations.

Wasserkunst and fountain from 1602 in Wismar, Germany. It's an example of pre-industrialization waterworks and fountain.

Chelsea Waterworks, 1752. Two Newcomen beam engines pumped Thames water from a canal to reservoirs at Green Park and Hyde Park.

Throughout history, people have devised systems to make getting and using water more convenient. Early Rome had indoor plumbing, meaning a system of aqueducts and pipes that terminated in homes and at public wells and fountains for people to use. In ancient Peru, the Nazca people employed a system of interconnected wells and an underground watercourse known as puquios. In Spain and Spanish America, a community operated watercourse known as an acequia, combined with a simple sand filtration system, provided potable water. Beginning in the Roman era a water wheel device known as a noria supplied water to aqueducts and other water distribution systems in major cities in Europe and the Middle East. London water supply infrastructure developed over many centuries from early mediaeval conduits, through major 19th century treatment works built in response to cholera threats, to modern large scale reservoirs.

Desalination appeared during the late 20th century, and is still limited to a few areas.

During the beginning of the 21st Century, especially in areas of urban and suburban population centers, traditional centralized infrastructure have not been able to supply sufficient quantities of water to keep up with growing demand. Among several options that have been managed are the extensive use of desalination technology, this is especially prevalent in coastal areas and in "dry" countries like Australia. Decentralization of water infrastructure has grown extensively as a viable solution including Rainwater harvesting and Stormwater harvesting where policies are eventually tending towards a more rational use and sourcing of water incorporation concepts such as "Fit for Purpose".

^Reece, R.J. (1907). "Report on the Epidemic of Enteric Fever in the City of Lincoln, 1904-5." In Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1905-6: Supplement Containing the Report of the Medical Officer for 1905-6. London:Local Government Board.

^Leal, John L. (1909). "The Sterilization Plant of the Jersey City Water Supply Company at Boonton, N.J." Proceedings American Water Works Association. pp. 100-9.

^NUS Consulting 2005-2006 International Water Report & Cost Survey [2] The study covered Denmark, Germany, the UK, Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Italy, Finland, Australia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Canada and the US. The methodology for assessing tariffs may be different from the methodology of the World Bank study cited above. The report means by "costs" average tariffs and not the costs of the utility, which can be lower or higher than average tariffs

^quoted from a comparison of 24 utilities on the US East Coast in the 2005 Annual Report of DC WASA, p. 38 [3] The comparison refers to a consumption level of 25 cubic feet per quarter